Talk:Jabari Brisport

DSA in infobox
See discussion with at Talk:Julia Salazar. Therequiembellishere (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

What we've been talking about.
"Nobody is denying he is a socialist. It's undue to make it the sixth word of the bio." This standard is not equitably applied across Wikipedia. There is no rule for or against it that I'm aware of. If there is a rule against that, and that's what you mean by "we have policies", send that my way. That would honestly be pretty helpful. Otherstuffexists is a good point.GeorgeBailey (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for posting instead of reverting. As a reminder, you are here to establish consensus to make this change, that means you have to demonstrate that this proposed change follows the guidelines, it is not my responsibility to convince you that we have policies and standards, but for you to convince myself or a consensus of others. If you want to make the argument, "This standard is not equitably applied across Wikipedia" then you must demonstrate it, not just nebulously wave your hand at the various articles that you allege do feature "socialist" in the sixth word of the opening sentence (if I understand you correctly). Of course, how you'll square this line of argument while conceding "OSE is a good point" is also entirely up to you. You should have links on your talk page or the sidebar about where to go for more information, I don't keep them handy but you can start at WP:BLP, WP:LEDE, and WP:WEIGHT. JesseRafe (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My understanding is from this [] is that the lead sentence probably shouldn't include an ideology. This is suprising to me as articles like New York Post, The Young Turks, Jack Posobiec, Michael Moore, Josh Mandel, and David Gilbert do include that sort of thing in the first sentence. This seems to be sort of a grey area. Is this determination on an article-by-article basis? GeorgeBailey (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it shouldn't include an ideology. Unless their ideology is what they're known for. Michael Moore is known as a leftwing activist as much as a filmmaker. If he made equally adept documentaries about parking meters, he would not be as well known. He regularly lends his celebrity to causes he overtly supports. Also, note where in the opening sentence it says it. The end. That is not what you did to the Brisport page. Further, Brisport is simply not exceptionally well known as a socialist per se. He's a notable politician due to his status as an elected State Senator. He was a non-notable educator and actor, prior to that, and his role as a losing candidate and activist still got the page deletion proposed, meaning his notability was still questioned, and his article would probably not remain safe without his eventual win. But he's not... Che Guevera. He's not known for socialism above all else. You can modify his activism in the lede, but I wouldn't even limit it to left-wing or socialist, as the article reflects other activist priorities that are aligned with but not part and parcel of socialism like housing and animal rights, so I don't think any modifiers are necessary. The reasonable reader will come away from the article knowing he's a socialist, even from the lede alone. JesseRafe (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)